Thoughts on the NT and it's writers

[Steve Petersen]

'The Bible is God's word because the Bible says the Bible is God's word.'

Circular reasoning. Need to have more substantial reasons for relying on the Bible.

 

[CShephard53]

There you go again, calling me a fundamentalist. When will you ever learn....

When will YOU ever learn that in order to make a valid point you have to address the post rather than the poster?

 

[CShephard53]

'The Bible is God's word because the Bible says the Bible is God's word.'

Circular reasoning. Need to have more substantial reasons for relying on the Bible.

I like the Apologetics Study Bible and all of its resources. While it is a Bible, it's also got plenty of reasons for God's word to be God's word. Oh, and Beamish, don't go calling me a fundie . I give reasons. I just like how other people say it and am working on how to summarize them better.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

First let me premise this thread by stating that I am not trying to debate or argue anything. I would like some thoughts and opinions on the NT and it's authors intent and canonization of the NT.

Let me start with this. The NT as a whole. Do you think that as the authors of the NT, they meant for their works to be Cannonized and to be elevated to the same level as the OT? That is how the NT is viewed today.

However would the Authors believe their writings to be of the same "Holy" level.

I certainly believe that they were inspired. However does that justify cannonization if that were not the intent?

When we read the NT scripture, we find that all reference to scripture is that of the OT and not the letters themselves.

Frankly, even within myself I ask, does this change anything at all, and if it does what?

I think understanding the true context of the scripture of the NT is very important when interpreting it and trying to understand it.

When we read the NT scripture, we find that all reference to scripture is that of the OT and not the letters themselves.

Actually this is inaccurate . . . Peter calls Paul's letters Scipture and Paul qoutes Luke's Gospel (probably) and also calls it Scripture.

I don't think that they "knew" that the letters would be canonized . . . but I DO think that the considered the letters and such as Scripture and as authoritative as the OT . . . they pretty much assume their interpretation as authoritative and take the initiative to refer to their words as the final say-so.

This being said . . . I agree with where conservative evangelicalism lands . . . the canon is closed. But I am not satisfied with how we get there.

There is also the issue of the Gift of Prophecy and how this relates to the NT revelation as well . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Your so-called biblically framed synopsis has lots of biblical quotations but when one actually looks at the citations, one finds that they don't say what you mean them to say. Just as an example, in Jn 10:35, Jesus was using scripture to refute the Jews' argument that he was blasphemous. He was saying that if humans are called gods in Psalms and if Scripture cannot be broken, how can they say he is blasphemous for calling himself the Son of God. He didn't declare that the O.T. is infallible. This is the usual misreading that is so wrong in fundamentalist Christianity. A verse is taken out of context and twisted to give a general teaching when it does not.

It's like if you say I have committed an offence for drinking alcohol and I reply in this way, "If the law of the land states that an underage boy cannot commit an offence and the law cannot be broken, how can you say I'm committing an offence for drinking beer?" And you are attempting to conclude that I'm saying that the law of the land is infallible.

The same goes for all your other biblical quotations. I notice fundamentalists love to do this. They state their doctrines and in brackets, they put in biblical references. But when you read the biblical references in context, they usually don't mean what the fundamentalist wants them to mean.

Even if the Bible has any reference that the O.T. is infallible which I absolutely dispute (because there is NO SUCH REFERENCE), the Bible clearly says nothing about the N.T. The books of the N.T. were nothing more than a collection of religious writings and the church gathered them (excluded some) and turned them into the N.T. Nowhere can you find justification for the collection of the N.T. to be designated the word of God.

Hebrews was only included because some in the church wrongly thought it was written by Paul and when they discovered it was not (and they haven't the foggiest who wrote it), they kept it anyway. Jude is another dubious book that made reference to an apocryphal O.T. book. The same goes for many of the N.T. epistles, etc. Paul told the Colossians to read his letter to the Laodiceans but we know that epistle was lost. So today we have in Col the instruction to read the epistle but it's lost. If it's the word of God, can we say that the word of God that should prevail even when heaven and earth shall fall away, is in fact lost for good?

These are issues that inerrantists shy away from. But you can sweep it under the carpet but it will never go away.

Like you, I'm not impressed with your doctrines either because they are not based on Scriptures. You just use quotations but when read in context, they don't mean what you think they mean.

Even if the Bible has any reference that the O.T. is infallible which I absolutely dispute (because there is NO SUCH REFERENCE), the Bible clearly says nothing about the N.T. The books of the N.T. were nothing more than a collection of religious writings and the church gathered them (excluded some) and turned them into the N.T. Nowhere can you find justification for the collection of the N.T. to be designated the word of God.

Save for Paul's made up word theopneustos attributed to the Scriptures . . . oh and the two NT passages that refer to the NT as Scripture . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I could be wrong but I don't recall scripture saying anything like this. Can you tell us what the other four are?

Billy <><

Probably a reference to the five "solas" . . . and belief in the Scriptures as the word of God is not necessary for salvation . . . but it certainly helps.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The Doctrine Of Scripture
The Christian faith pivots around the historicity of the resurrection. As Paul put it, &#8220;...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.&#8221; [1 Corinthians 15:14/NIV] But the resurrection does not stand alone as an historical eccentricity; rather, it is the product of biblical prophesy, as Paul mentioned earlier in the above passage.


&#8220;For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve.&#8221; [1 Corinthians15:3-5/NIV]


Even the resurrection, with its central standing in the Christian faith, gleans its significance from the Scriptures. Jesus believed the Old Testament was infallible [John 10:35]. The broader testimony of the Bible supports this conclusion [Proverbs 30:5]. Thus the Scriptures stand as our only and all sufficient rule for faith and practice [2 Timothy 3:16]. Everything else we believe springs forth from the Word.


The Doctrine Of God
While belief in Yahweh is, in itself, insufficient to save [James 2:19], such belief is nevertheless requisite. If one is to be saved, one must believe in the God, not merely a god. Thus Christians acknowledge only the Triune God of the Bible [Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-5, 10:30; Romans 8:9-11; Titus 2:13]. (Normally we would also discuss Christology and Pneumatology at some length, though for our purposes, conservative evangelical values may be assumed).


The Doctrine Of Man
Human beings were created directly by God, in His image, and in two distinct genders [Genesis 5:1-2]; all persons have a definite beginning [Psalm 139:13]. Mankind was created to serve and glorify God [Ecclesiastes 12:13; 1 Peter 4:11]. Human beings are by nature corporeal [Matthew 6:11], though we possess both a soul and a spirit [Hebrews 4:12]. A person's spirit is everlasting [Matthew 25:46].


The Doctrine Of Sin
Though created in perfection, man chose to sin [Genesis 3:6]. Sin brought death [1 Corinthians15:21-22]. The term death refers to both physical demise and unending punishment in hell [1 Corinthians11:30; Revelation 20:11-15]. There is nothing people can do to rescue themselves from God's wrath [Isaiah 64:6]. The natural destiny of all human kind is, by default, condemnation [John 3:18].


The Doctrine Of Salvation
What we cannot do for ourselves, God has done for us. While we were still helpless in sin, God sent His Son, the only begotten God [John 1:18/NASB], born of a virgin [Matthew 1:23], to die in our place [Romans 5:6]. Through faith in Christ, a person's sins are forgiven and he is made a child of God [John 1:12; Romans 10:9-13]; authentic belief is always accompanied by sincere repentance [Mark 1:15]. Jesus did not remain dead, but rose bodily on the third day [Luke 24:6]. He ascended bodily into heaven, from whence He will one day bodily return [Acts 1:11]. Those who die in Christ are received spiritually and immediately into the presence of God [2 Corinthians 5:8]. At the end, all Christians will be resurrected unto glory [1 Corinthians 15:23-24]. The wicked too will be resurrected unto everlasting torment [Revelation 20:11-13]. Evil will continue for a time, but when all is said and done, God wins [Revelation 21:1 - 22:21].


While this is an exceedingly brief and incomplete synopsis, it sketches the elemental doctrines that provide a foundation for the Christian faith.

Ah not the five solas . . .

 

[beamishboy]

Save for Paul's made up word theopneustos attributed to the Scriptures . . . oh and the two NT passages that refer to the NT as Scripture . . .

Hi, can you please let me have the references? I'm not as familiar with the Bible as some of you might be. I'm more familiar with the liturgy of the church because as an altar boy, that's quite important. I always boast that unlike the parishioners, we say all our responses without the prayer book. Our hands are always occupied. Hehe.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hi, can you please let me have the references? I'm not as familiar with the Bible as some of you might be. I'm more familiar with the liturgy of the church because as an altar boy, that's quite important. I always boast that unlike the parishioners, we say all our responses without the prayer book. Our hands are always occupied. Hehe.

Sure

Here is Paul's made up word:

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
NASU

It is in the category called a hapaxlegomenon (a word which only occurs once in the NT) and is translated in English as "inspired by God" (three words) but is really only one word in the Greek theopnuestos . . . the more accurate rendering is not "inspired" but would be better expired/exhaled (as it is literally God-breathed).

The Peter citation:

2 Peter 3:15-16
our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
NASU

Here Peter CLEARLY considers ALL of Paul's writ as on par with the OT Scriptures in authority as he calls Paul's letters graphe . . . a technical NT term for the Scriptures.

And Paul's citation:

1 Tim 5:18
18 For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and " The laborer is worthy of his wages.
NASU

Which is (probably) a quote from Luke's Gospel (same wording) from here:

Luke 10:7
7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
NASU

So the NT affirms a LARGE portion (seeing the Paul wrote the most) of itself as on par with the OT.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hi, can you please let me have the references? I'm not as familiar with the Bible as some of you might be. I'm more familiar with the liturgy of the church because as an altar boy, that's quite important. I always boast that unlike the parishioners, we say all our responses without the prayer book. Our hands are always occupied. Hehe.

Sure

Here is Paul's made up word:

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
NASU

It is in the category called a hapaxlegomenon (a word which only occurs once in the NT) and is translated in English as "inspired by God" (three words) but is really only one word in the Greek theopnuestos . . . the more accurate rendering is not "inspired" but would be better expired/exhaled (as it is literally God-breathed).

The Peter citation:

2 Peter 3:15-16
our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
NASU

Here Peter CLEARLY considers ALL of Paul's writ as on par with the OT Scriptures in authority as he calls Paul's letters graphe . . . a technical NT term for the Scriptures.

And Paul's citation:

1 Tim 5:18
18 For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and " The laborer is worthy of his wages.
NASU

Which is (probably) a quote from Luke's Gospel (same wording) from here:

Luke 10:7
7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
NASU

So the NT affirms a LARGE portion (seeing the Paul wrote the most) of itself as on par with the OT.

 

[beamishboy]

Sure

Here is Paul's made up word:

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
NASU

It is in the category called a hapaxlegomenon (a word which only occurs once in the NT) and is translated in English as "inspired by God" (three words) but is really only one word in the Greek theopnuestos . . . the more accurate rendering is not "inspired" but would be better expired/exhaled (as it is literally God-breathed).

The Peter citation:

2 Peter 3:15-16
our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
NASU

Here Peter CLEARLY considers ALL of Paul's writ as on par with the OT Scriptures in authority as he calls Paul's letters graphe . . . a technical NT term for the Scriptures.

And Paul's citation:

1 Tim 5:18
18 For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and " The laborer is worthy of his wages.
NASU

Which is (probably) a quote from Luke's Gospel (same wording) from here:

Luke 10:7
7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
NASU

So the NT affirms a LARGE portion (seeing the Paul wrote the most) of itself as on par with the OT.

Unlike most boys my age, I do a lot of reading on religion because I became an atheist when I was 9 and when I returned to the faith about 6 months later, I decided to be more knowledgeable.

I understand from FF Bruce, an evangelical scholar, that the word which is translated "scripture" in the NT is actually the Greek word "graphia" which simply means "writing". That famous 2 Timothy verse can also be translated "All writing which is God-breathed is profitable....". This doesn't say very much. It begs the question which writings are in fact God-breathed. Metzger also says that in the early church before they even thought of having a canon, the very early church fathers used the word "inspired" or "God-breathed" very loosely. Non-canonical writings which were edifying were considered inspired. At that time, they didn't have the strict idea of inspiration as we do now. This idea of having a canon only came about when heretical works started to proliferate.

You also quoted 2 Peter. Evidently you don't have a problem with some of the Catholic epistles, as they are called by scholars. I tend to be more careful when I am dealing with the non-Pauline epistles. The early church had no problems with the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline corpus of 13 epistles. But some of the other epistles (and for me personally, Hebrews in particular is a serious problem) were met with some opposition on authenticity and authority.

But I'm entirely with you on the teachings of the NT. Although I would not say the NT is totally inerrant, it's the best record the church could preserve of the teachings of our Lord and the Apostles and for that reason, it is the holy Word of God.

 

[TimRout]

Ah not the five solas . . .

While I am uncertain of the originator, I was first introduced to this five point synopsis years ago during my Bible College experience. If memory serves, an expanded version can be found in the back of the Ryrie study Bible. The five solas...

-by Scripture alone
-by faith alone
-by grace alone
-in Christ alone
-to God's glory alone

...are reflected in the expanded summary.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Unlike most boys my age, I do a lot of reading on religion because I became an atheist when I was 9 and when I returned to the faith about 6 months later, I decided to be more knowledgeable.

I understand from FF Bruce, an evangelical scholar, that the word which is translated "scripture" in the NT is actually the Greek word "graphia" which simply means "writing". That famous 2 Timothy verse can also be translated "All writing which is God-breathed is profitable....". This doesn't say very much. It begs the question which writings are in fact God-breathed. Metzger also says that in the early church before they even thought of having a canon, the very early church fathers used the word "inspired" or "God-breathed" very loosely. Non-canonical writings which were edifying were considered inspired. At that time, they didn't have the strict idea of inspiration as we do now. This idea of having a canon only came about when heretical works started to proliferate.

You also quoted 2 Peter. Evidently you don't have a problem with some of the Catholic epistles, as they are called by scholars. I tend to be more careful when I am dealing with the non-Pauline epistles. The early church had no problems with the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline corpus of 13 epistles. But some of the other epistles (and for me personally, Hebrews in particular is a serious problem) were met with some opposition on authenticity and authority.

But I'm entirely with you on the teachings of the NT. Although I would not say the NT is totally inerrant, it's the best record the church could preserve of the teachings of our Lord and the Apostles and for that reason, it is the holy Word of God.

Whenever graphe is used in the NT it 100 percent of the time refers to the Written Word of the OT . . . so to water down the etymology to nuance the word to NOT refer to the OT is really weak.

And as far as the Catholic epsitles . . . the demons respond to these the same as the others and differently then they do to the apocrypha. So the tradition of the church in reference to the spurious nature of these means little.

The question you should ask yourself, brother, is "Do you trust God?"

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

While I am uncertain of the originator, I was first introduced to this five point synopsis years ago during my Bible College experience. If memory serves, an expanded version can be found in the back of the Ryrie study Bible. The five solas...

-by Scripture alone
-by faith alone
-by grace alone
-in Christ alone
-to God's glory alone

...are reflected in the expanded summary.

Well the 5 solas are a patently Reformed association.

 

[TimRout]

Well the 5 solas are a patently Reformed association.

While I can understand your objection to Reformed theology, I can find nothing in the framework I provided that directly affronts Arminian theology. Can you?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

While I can understand your objection to Reformed theology, I can find nothing in the framework I provided that directly affronts Arminian theology. Can you?

I am certainly more Calvinist than Arminian . . . I am a big sovereignty of God guy.

I wasn't criticizing you . . . I was simply making statements in response to the posts.

Apologies if I came off differently.

 

[TimRout]

I am certainly more Calvinist than Arminian . . . I am a big sovereignty of God guy.

I wasn't criticizing you . . . I was simply making statements in response to the posts.

Apologies if I came off differently.

And likewise, I apologize. Seeing that your insignia indicates "Pentecostal" I assumed your theology reflected a Wesleyan tradition. Upon closer inspection, I now see the parenthetical "sovereign grace".